legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
86
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$86,945
In fines, where reported
5 of 86 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

Apr 2025 Sep 2026

Charting 49 of 86 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 13 CoCounsel 1 Eve 1 Gemini 1 Lexis+ AI 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 11–20 of 86 incidents. Clear filters

Reprimanded
The court admonished a lawyer for submitting false case law quotes in court filings.
Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections · N.D. Alabama · AL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections involved a lawyer using AI.
  • The lawyer submitted false quotes from case law in filings.
  • The court issued an admonishment against the attorney.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
  • The decision was issued on April 28, 2026.
Reprimanded 2026-08-27
The court admonished a lawyer and deemed the appellate issue waived after the attorney submitted a brief containing a fabricated case citation.
Paige Kiser & Ty Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group et al. · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · PA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Paige Kiser & Ty Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group et al. involved a lawyer filing an AI-fabricated citation.
  • Counsel submitted an appellate filing containing a fabricated case citation.
  • The court issued an admonishment and deemed the issue waived or underdeveloped for appeal.
  • The case was before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
  • The court issued its decision on August 27, 2026.
Reprimanded 2026-08-26
The court admonished a lawyer for submitting filings that contained misrepresented case law.
Tyler Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Tyler Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc. involved a lawyer submitting misrepresented legal citations.
  • Counsel submitted court papers misrepresenting case law due to suspected AI usage.
  • The court admonished the attorney.
  • The ruling was issued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
  • The order was filed on August 26, 2026.
Reprimanded 2026-08-25
An attorney filed a brief containing 25 phantom quotes and was ordered to complete a CLE course on AI or appellate practice within six months.
LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLC · Michael Hadeed Jr · Court of Appeals of Virginia · VA
“We suspect that being the subject of this cautionary tale is penalty enough at this juncture; but because we are compelled by statute and case law to impose a consequence for the offending brief, we call upon counsel to complete a continuing legal education course relating to AI or appellate practice within six months of the issuance of this opinion.”
vibegraveyard.ai ↗
The file →
  • LPC Commercial Services v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties involved attorney Michael Hadeed Jr.
  • Hadeed filed an appellate brief containing 25 phantom quotes attributed to Virginia cases.
  • The court sanctioned Hadeed by requiring him to complete an AI or appellate CLE course.
  • The decision was issued by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
  • Judge Frank K. Friedman issued the opinion, noting the brief illustrated the perils of unverified AI research.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-08-24
The court issued a formal public reprimand after a lawyer submitted court filings containing false quotes and misrepresented cases generated by ChatGPT.
Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (2) · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial involved a lawyer who used ChatGPT to generate legal submissions.
  • Counsel filed briefs containing false quotes and misrepresented case law created by ChatGPT.
  • The court issued a formal public reprimand against the lawyer.
  • The decision occurred in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
  • The formal reprimand was ordered on August 24, 2026.
Reprimanded
An attorney was publicly reprimanded and ordered to disclose his sanction after filing documents drafted by his client containing AI-generated fabrications.
Chapman v. City of Priceville · Scott Morro · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“It appears likely from the nature of the misrepresentations that the filings at issue were generated by artificial intelligence.”
decaturdaily.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Scott Morro was sanctioned in a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Garry Chapman against Priceville.
  • Morro submitted filings drafted by his client containing two fake case citations and imaginary quotes from seven other cases.
  • Judge Harold Mooty issued a public reprimand and ordered Morro to disclose the sanction in all his other cases by August 24.
  • The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
  • Morro admitted his standard practice was allowing his client to draft legal documents without pulling or reading the cited cases.
Reprimanded 2026-08-10
A pro se contractor cited four fictitious AI-generated cases in its summary judgment motion; the Board struck those citations and imposed sanctions.
Appeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC, ASBCA No. 64164 · Robert M. Pastorelli · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
pubkgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Robert M. Pastorelli, representing PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC, was sanctioned.
  • He cited four fictitious AI-generated cases in a summary judgment motion.
  • The Board imposed a limited sanction by striking the fake citations.
  • The incident occurred at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, a federal court.
  • The sanction was imposed on August 10, 2026, due to the 'blatant disregard' of the contractor's obligation to verify cases.
Reprimanded 2026-08-05
An attorney was admonished by the court after submitting filings with three fabricated case citations and a misrepresented case.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Laura Becerra (as Next Friend of J.C.) · CA Texas · TX
technewsreel.com ↗
The file →
  • San Antonio ISD v. Becerra involved an unnamed lawyer.
  • Filings contained 3 fabricated case citations and 1 misrepresented case.
  • The court issued an admonishment.
  • Texas Court of Appeals.
  • Order issued August 5, 2026; AI use was implied.
Reprimanded ChatGPT
Three attorneys filed a motion with fabricated AI citations; a federal judge publicly reprimanded and disqualified them and referred them to the State Bar.
Alabama supervising attorney and others · federal judge · AL
“This was “an extreme dereliction of professional responsibility” and “lazy, convenient fictions” substituting for truth.”

Cases that don't exist

  • United States v. Baker
  • Kelley v. City of Birmingham
  • Greer v. Warden
vlex.com ↗
The file →
  • Alabama supervising attorney was one of three lawyers sanctioned over a motion with fake citations.
  • ChatGPT produced citations that were copied into the motion without verification.
  • The court publicly reprimanded and disqualified all three attorneys and referred them to the State Bar.
  • Federal court in Alabama.
  • Page says the judge called the conduct “recklessness in the extreme” and required review of 52 federal cases.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.